Soft-delete a card by its uid: it leaves the board and every listing, its relations to other cards are removed, any estimation session on it is deactivated, and whiteboard elements linked to it are unlinked. The epic it belonged to is not deleted. There is no undelete through MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Card uid |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds crucial context: soft-delete semantics, the exact side effects on related data, that the epic is preserved, and that undelete is unavailable. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates effects in a logical order. No filler – every clause conveys a distinct behavioral fact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with one parameter, this description covers all necessary behavioral context: the operation type, side effects, irreversibility, and what is not deleted. No output schema is needed for a delete; the agent knows what to expect. It is fully sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% – the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Card uid'. The description merely refers to 'by its uid', adding no new constraints or format details. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Soft-delete a card by its uid') and enumerates concrete side effects: leaving board/listings, removing relations, deactivating estimation sessions, unlinking whiteboard elements, and clarifying the epic is not deleted. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_epic or delete_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the warning 'There is no undelete through MCP' implicitly tells the agent to be cautious. The resource type (card) is unambiguous among siblings, making the intended use clear, though it could have explicitly stated when to prefer this over update_card or other delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.